Halina Maria Kowczyk v H M Land Registry — 2026

The claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment dated 13 November 2025, which had held that she was not disabled at the material time by virtue of stress, anxiety and effects of the menopause. The original judgment also found that the disability discrimination claims were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It held that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it.

The Tribunal said that, at a preliminary hearing, the claimant had confirmed that the conditions relied upon for the disability discrimination claims were stress, anxiety and effects of the menopause. The Tribunal found that there was no medical evidence supporting a long-standing impairment adversely affecting normal day-to-day activities. It noted that, apart from an entry in 2002 concerning night sweats and affected sleep, the medical records contained no entries concerning the relied-upon conditions during the two years before dismissal; sertraline was prescribed the day after the claimant received the dismissal outcome letter.

The claimant sought to rely on evidence concerning a secondary mental health referral and awaited confirmation of anxiety and hoarding disorder. The Tribunal found that she had not explained why evidence concerning hoarding disorder could not reasonably have been provided at the original hearing or how it affected the conduct leading to dismissal. It also concluded that the proposed anxiety evidence could not alter the absence of a record of that condition before the investigation and disciplinary hearing.

The Tribunal applied the interests of justice test narrowly and found no procedural irregularity, qualifying new evidence, or material change in circumstances that justified reopening the decision. It concluded that the application attempted to introduce evidence without explaining its relevance or previous unavailability and to reargue matters already decided. The reconsideration application was refused because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked; no monetary remedy was recorded.